David Ray Griffin interview: The NORAD Audio Tapes: Real or Faked?

[reprehensor]

The NORAD Audio Tapes: Real or Faked?

Interview with Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding his most recent article, "9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify the 9/11 Commission Report?" Griffin's article, written primarily in response to Vanity Fair Magazine's, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes" by Michael Bronner in their September 2006 issue, deconstructs the preposterous argument that NORAD was not notified by the FAA of hijacked airliners until they had struck their targets or crashed, and that the only jets the military scrambled were in response to a flight that did not exist. Griffin takes a close look at NORAD's audio tapes, on whose authenticity these claims depend.

Archive stream;
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=15892

[mhatrw]

1. Thanks.

[reprehensor]

2. MP3 download

MP3 download - 10.2 MB
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/griffin/griffin-faulkner-8-30-2006.mp3

[seemslikeadream]

3. Thanks

BUDDY BUDDY

DO THE MATH

24 MINUTES

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER WATCH THIS VIDEO

http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html

[Sven77]

4. Dr. David Ray Griffin on Hannity & Colmes Tonight

Dr. David Ray Griffin on Hannity & Colmes Tonight

According to Scholars for 9/11 Truth Dr. David Ray Griffin will be appearing on the Hannity & Colmes show - September 1st.

1 September 2006
Interview: David Ray Griffin will be the guest
discussing 9/11 on "Hannity & Colmes"
6-7:00 PM/PT (9-10:00 PM/ET) FOX TV

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2408

[TAM]

5. Dr. Griffin's Analysis of the Tapes - How?

In what way or manner is Professor Griffin "Analyzing" the NORAD Tapes. I hope, given his expertese is in Theology, that he is having an expert in voice and audio analysis look at them, if he is disputing their authenticity.

[JackRiddler]

6. No, you're right...

The one best qualified to analyze these tapes is obviously a Hollywood producer (Michael Bronner, maker of United 93). This is why he is the first private person to whom the government ever granted access, for the article in Vanity Fair.

Next?

[TAM]

7. How does that address what I was saying?

Did I say that Micahel Bronner was the best person to allow access to the tapes? Maybe he was the first person to ask for them...i don't know. I do know that in terms of analyzing the authenticity of an audio recording, someone with expertese in the field of audio analysis or the like WOULD be the best person to do so, not a THEOLOGIAN, unless he is an audio analyst in his spare time. Griffin, I suppose, is as good as anyone else, for analyzing the timelines of the recordings, to make sure they "add up", but beyond that, i don't see him being the person to go to...

But thanks for NOT Addressing the actual point of my comment...:)

Next

TAM

[mhatrw]

29. "Maybe he was the first person to ask for them"

LOL

[TAM]

30. About what I would expect...still disappointing reply

oh that is an adult comment.

so who asked for them before he did...show me the request?

[mp3hound]

8. TAM didn't say that Bronner is qualified to analyze the tapes

any more than Griffin is.

Why not address what he actually said instead of erecting a strawman?

[mirandapriestly]

11. good one, Jack Riddler.eom

[paulthompson]

9. I found Griffin's comments very thought provoking

While I would find it unlikely that fake tapes were created, I could easily see them being judiciously edited to only show certain things. In fact, we know this has happened before. On October 16, 2001, the New York Times published the transcripts from the flight controllers talking to the cockpits of the hijacked planes. However, only transcripts for three of the four flights were released (Flight 93 is skipped), and those transcripts only included parts of the relevant times (for instance, Flight 77 crashes at 9:37 but the tape only goes until 9:14). Further, there were dialogues later quoted in official accounts that took place during the parts that were released that weren't included there.

But what I'm most interested in is the contradictions between this latest version of events and earlier versions. Griffin is right. If the early versions were correct, then that means that a lot of people are lying or perpetuating a cover up by not speaking up now. If the current version shown in this tape is correct, then that means a lot of people were lying or perpetuating a cover up by not speaking up earlier. There is no way BOTH versions can be true. In fact, I've counted no less than 7 contrary accounts the military has put forth about it's behavior on 9/11 (1st version: 9/12/01-9/13/01, 2nd version: 9/14/01, 3rd version: 9/18/01, 4th version: NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2003, 5th version in Air War Over America, a book published in early 2004 commissioned by the military, 6th version in NORAD testimonies before 9/11 Commission in 2004, and 7th version in these latest NORAD tapes in the Vanity Fair article).

There's been nothing but lies and contradictions all along. It's like the keep trying different stories until they find one that sticks. For instance, here's part of one of my timeline entries documenting the first and second versions:

September 14, 2001: Account of Fighter Response Times Changes Significantly
CBS News announces that "contrary to early reports, US Air Force jets did get into the air on Tuesday while the attacks were under way."; According to this new account, the first fighters got airborne toward New York City at 8:52 a.m. (CBS News, 9/14/2001) The day before this announcement, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers in congressional testimony stated that the first fighters got airborne only after the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m. (US Congress, 9/13/2001) NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed no fighters launched anywhere until after the Pentagon was hit. (Boston Globe, 9/15/2001)

And here's a snippet from one of my entries about the 3rd version:

September 17, 2001: White House Meeting Leads to Cover-up?
In a later 9/11 Commission hearing, Commissioner Bob Kerrey says that NORAD gives a briefing at the White House on this day. He adds, “and it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.” (9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004) The next day, NORAD releases a timeline of 9/11 events detailing fighter response times.

Is Kerrey's comment not a polite way of basically saying the White House and NORAD got together and fudged the facts? Yet those (still highly flawed) early accounts are probably closer to the truth than the more recent accounts. In each new account, NORAD is less culpable for the failures than in the account before it.

Compare also the comments here from the heads of NORAD with this latest version put forth in the Vanity Fair article and the 2004 9/11 Commission account where NORAD didn't even know Flight 93 had been hijacked until after it crashed!:

Before 9:36 a.m.: Officials Claim NORAD is Monitoring Flight 93
According to one account given by NEADS Commander Robert Marr, some time before around 9:36 when it changes direction, while it is still flying west, Flight 93 is being monitored by NEADS. Marr describes how, “We don’t have fighters that way and we think headed toward Detroit or Chicago.” He says he contacts a base in the area “so they head off 93 at the pass.” Not only does NORAD know about the flight, but also, according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” (This change of direction occurs around 9:36 a.m.) This account completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s later claim that NEADS is first notified about Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. <9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004>

Yet we're supposed to believe (according to a Pentagon internal investigation into these contradictions) that the differences are because of poor government recording keeping? Give me a break!

So anyway, I've shared some thoughts on this topic in an interview that came out today. You might want to give it a listen, it's over an hour long:

http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/11442.php

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. From the Vanity Fair article we know

that the Hollywood director claims he got or will get 6:30 hours real time recording from 30 hours of DAT Tapes.

I would ultimately get three CDs with huge digital "wav file" recordings of the various channels in each section of the operations floor, 30-some hours of material in full, covering six and a half hours of real time. The first disc, which arrived by mail, was decorated with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and was labeled, in the playful Apple Chancery font, "Northeast Air Defense Sector—DAT Audio Files—11 Sep 2001."

I don't know how 30 hours wav would fit on 3 cds, but anyway.



http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

Everybody is lying and nobody cares about the War Games.

How important is NEADS in Rome New York? Are there actual NORAD Tapes from the Cheyenne Mountains?

[TAM]

12. So those involved in the "inside job" grows bigger still?

Are you suggesting the Hollywood director is in on it?

The files could have been "Zipped" for him to unzip onto his computer. Just a possible answer to your question, though I am not sure what the purpose of your question is...unless you are insinuating that Michael Bronner is lieing, and is in on some cover up? Perhaps you should ask him, so he can defend himself. He isn't a USG official.

The War Games, I am sure played some role in the poor or inadequate response (no need to flame me over the use of the word "some" here either), but War Games are quite common are they not. Has anyone done any research into how many days in 2001 War Games were going on? Has anyone checked to see if the scenarios that were run on 9/11 were repeated previously, or similar ones to them occuring before hand?

As for lying about the events in FAA/NORAD that day, even as a LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence) I have little doubt there is a lot of minimizing, and cover-up going on. The difference is, I think it is to protect their jobs/positions from firing due to incompetence, not some grand scale cover up of an "inside job".

[FoxOnTheRun]

14. I have to correct myself

He is the Producer of United 93, his first and only movie
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2224890/


If you could see him on Fox News looking at his talking points and smirking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdev2VFBa3w

And of course not one word about an excercise to confuse the people

[TAM]

15. Sorry...producer of the movie it is then....

Like I said, he is not here to defend himself.

Smirking! come on. So what? He could be smirking for a million different reasons.

Wargames? What does he care. They were making a movie based on the official story of Flight 93. they have no obligation to you or anyone to research anything beyond what they need to tell the story they want to tell...give me a break.

If he were part of the USG, then yes I think he would have some accountablity.

12:38 Eastern - Youtube will not connect me to this clip...I will try later.

TAM

[petgoat]

19. "they have no obligation to you or anyone to research anything"

Normally I defend the artistic license of any screenwriter to insert a battle
between a triceratops and a tiger in his screenplay if he wants to, if everyone
understands that its fiction.

The Director's Statement says:

"UNITED 93 is a film about 9/11.

"It tells the story of the day through a meticulous re-enactment of
events surrounding United 93..."

http://www.united93movie.com/index.php

That looks like a claim to historical accuracy. And monkeying with that when
people are still dying in a war engendered by the hysteria is just plain
immoral IMHO.

[petgoat]

18. You're making unjustified assumptions favorable to the official story.

I did the same thing, assuming that four simultaneous attacks overwhelmed
the air defense before NORAD could respond. Then some 9/11 activists told
me there was no air defense for an hour and a half.

You're making the very comfortable assumption that they're hiding information
because they're covering up incompetence. Wouldn't it be better to uncover the
info before deciding what they're covering up?

I wouldn't say Mr. Bronner is lying, necessarily, but I don't think he's real well
informed.

Here are some things I picked up from the article:

8:55 Colin Scoggins tells NEADs to disregard the tail number he gave
earlier for flight 11. This would be interesting to the (Team 8?) people
who claim there were actually two flight 11s boarding at the same time at
Logan.

8:56 Boston says they last saw flight 11 eight miles east of JFK. But
doesn’t the 9/11 Commission say flight 11 flew right down the Hudson
River, over the Indian Point nuke plant?

8:57 Bronner claims that FAA’s New York Air Traffic Control Center
watches flight 175 turn off course and head toward NYC, counting off
the changes in altitude, knowing flight 11 has hit WTC1, and they do not
notify NEADS until 9:03. The article does not cite its source of
information.

Note NORAD initially reported that FAA told them about flight 175’s
hijacking at 8:43. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/


9:21 Colin Scoggins of Boston reports a hijacked plane headed
toward Washington. The suggestion that flight 11 was still I the air
originally came from an unknown person in an FAA conference call.
The 9/11 Commission claimed they didn’t know who passed this on
to NEADS. If Scoggins is right there on the tape, why the 9CR
miss him? Note Bronner does not give us the tape of Scoggins
passing this on to NEADS.

Bronner all but accuses the NORAD guys of lying when they quote times
inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission report.

Col. Scott told the Commission in 5/03 that NORAD had been tracking
93 since 9:16 and that Langley jets were scrambled at 9:24 in response to
reports of flight 77’s hijacking.

Col. Marr had said in 9/02 that NORAD was positioned to intercept 93.
Gen. Arnold told the Commission the same thing, and said the Langley
fighters were scrambled to protect Washington from 93.

According to Filson’s book Marr’s recollections that 93 was being monitored
were quite specific. Marr reported that they thought it was heading toward
Chicago or Detroit, and he called a base to arrange an interception.
Filson also reports that Gen. Arnold said “We watched the 93 track as it
meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” http://tinyurl.com/r8cwk (see 9:36)

Note Bronner brings up Marr’s base-calling action in the context of Delta
1989 later on.

9:38 Scoggins reports a plane 6 miles SE of the White House. Why is Boston
Center reporting this? Do they have radar data for the Washington area?

10:02 Bronner says Cheney was notified of 93 at 10:02. Doesn’t
say how he knows this, or how Cheney was informed. NEADS
wasn’t informed, says Bronner, until 10:07.

Note Bronner reports Cheney’s “sober deliberations about the
prospect of shooting down” 93—but doesn’t say he ordered it.
The 9/11 Commission says he ordered it between 10:10 and 10:15,
after having the concept approved by the President shortly before 10:00.

Note Bronner says the authorization did not come until 10:18.
He doesn’t give his source for this information.


Note Bronner accepts the 10:03 crash time for 93 without comment about the
evidence that it crashed at 10:06.

[TAM]

22. So who was in on it?

So let me ask you a simple question. Out of all the people involved in NORAD and the FAA that day, Who was involved in the "inside job" and based on what.

Otherwise it is all conjecture/speculation based on inconsistencies (and pleas no quotes about inconsistencies or connecting dots).

[petgoat]

25. I see no need to think that any of them were in on it, except

Gen. Myers and Rummie. The air defence was disrupted by the war games.
They can't talk about the war games, 'cause they're classified.

If 93 was shot down, or brought down with some kind of EMF pulse weapon
regarding that C-130H, then presumably a couple of people there were
in on it.

[FoxOnTheRun]

27. Why not a AIM-9 Sidewinder?

What happened to the Gibney story?

[hack89]

28. The CIA, NSA and the Pentagon leak like sieves ..

look at all the "secret" stuff that has been revealed in the media on how Bush is illegally undermining our right. Yet they won't talk about war games because they are "secret"? Give me a break!

[petgoat]

32. The AT&T/NSA whistleblower was an AT&T guy. nt

[hack89]

37. Are you sure?

I saw where AT&T leaked classified details accidentally when they responded to a law suit but there is nothing that says the initial leak to the media came from AT&T. I could be wrong but I was unable to find anything - do you have a link?

[petgoat]

39. As Far as I know, the Initial Info came from Mark Klein.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70908-0.html

[hack89]

40. Thanks (nt)

[petgoat]

43. de nada nt

[Sinti]

31. Technically, no one at NORAD or FAA had to be "in on it"

In the official story, that would be the 9/11 Commission's work, FAA kept getting kicked off the conference call between NMCC, the White House, and FAA. There were technical difficulties with the NMCC's secure line and the FAA's not secure line.

The FAA's hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, was in Puerto Rico, checking on their security implementations, and no one asked if he delegated his duties to any one else. Though, apparently Ben Sliney (IIRC) acted as highjack coordinator, which gives the impression that no, in fact, he did not delegate his duties.

Lt. Gen. Winfield asked Captain Leidig to take his place for the time period of 8:30 to 10:30 the day before, and therefore was out of touch. I'd love to know what reasoning he gave for his absence. Leidig had never been in charge before, and had only qualified to take Winfield's place the month before.

Your entire command structure, President, Sec. Def., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, director of the NMCC, and hijack coordinator were AWOL basically the entire time, while the fecal matter was repeatedly hitting the rotating air producing device.

It really doesn't matter what NORAD did or didn't do on its own, without Rumsfeld they couldn't legally get even one jet airborne - though I think they did without his approval anyway. What was he going to say - damn you, you did this without me, into the brig with you? I don't think so.

[paulthompson]

33. Not true

You said: "It really doesn't matter what NORAD did or didn't do on its own, without Rumsfeld they couldn't legally get even one jet airborne"

That is not true. It's a common misunderstanding that I believe is encouraged by some people as a form of spin. Cheney, for instance, has confused the issue on this point. There's a difference between scambling fighters to simply investigate when a plane goes off course and/or loses communication. It happens all the time (129 times in the year before 9/11 I believe) and the Defense Secretary isn't needed at all. (Further, I found stats from about 1994 showing that about 10 percent of cases are of lost planes inside the US, not planes coming in.) When he is needed according to new regulations from the summer of 2001, is to authorize the shoot down of such a plane.

To reiterate, fighters scrambling before 9/11 was a routine event, often involving planes trying to smuggle drugs in the US, and would not have merited the Defense Secretary's attention. Shooting down a plane, on the other hand, is a VERY different matter. People especially confuse the issue by saying there was no point to send up fighters if there was no permission yet to shoot it down. Hopefully you can see through the logic of that.

[JackRiddler]

34. Agreed but...

Didn't the legal procedure for interceptions change technically as a result of the June 1st order signed by Rumsfeld which incorporated the Sec. Defense into the decision-making process for routine interceptions for the first time?

Agreed that wouldn't or shouldn't stop anyone from ordering intercepts in his demonstrated "absence" except technically.

I do find it interesting that the few available figures on scramble orders prior to 9/11 apply to orders issued from Sep. 2000 to June 1, 2001 (67 if I'm remembering your own work correctly) and the year 2000 (127 I recall from Toronto Star). I wonder if there was any implementation of the Rumsfeld June 1st order between June 1 and 9/11.

(My guess on the Rumsfeld order: no, it would not be an impediment to issuing scrambles in his absence, but it was probably designed to implicate him and therefore secure his assent to the plot. I imagine an Eberhard or somebody else involved in operations around the 9/11 wargames demanding Rumsfeld's signature to guarantee that he doesn't sell out the other guys at some future date.)

[Sinti]

35. It was my understanding, that this was changed in June 2001

I read the regs - the two different pages, and under the new regs the on-ground commanders were to contact the Sec. Def. before scrambling. I'll have to find the two different pages of regs to verify, perhaps I misread the change. I think I have them both saved to hard drive somewhere. I didn't read it having to do with "shoot down' orders. Generally, before 9/11, shoot-downs weren't thought of much, and I assume would require high-level authority. In the normal course the jets would get on your wings and tell you to get within X and Y coordinates (perhaps force you there), or tell you to land at X place.

I'm well aware that plenty of planes get sent up, for various reasons. In fact, 1,518 times between '89 and '92.

Scramble Activity by Air Defense Units and Alert Sites,
1989-92

Air defense unit         Total number          Number Drug
Related
Atlantic City, N.J.            82                       14
Burlington, Vt.                 6                        2
Langley Air Force Base, Va.    52                        0 
Duluth, Minn.                   0                        0 
Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.   57                        6 
Ellington, Tex.               158                       10 
Holloman AF Base, N. Mex.      41                        5 
Fargo, N. Dak.                  0                        0 
Kingsley AF Base, Oreg.        49                        0 
Fresno, Calif.                 88                        1 
Castle AF Base, Calif.          3                        0 
George AF Base, Calif.         76                        1 
March AF Base, Calif.          15                        0 
Great Falls. Mont.              4                        4 
Davis-Monthan AF Base, Ariz.   62                        8 
Jacksonville, Fla.             64                        4 
Homestead AF Base. Fla.       270                       24 
Key West, Fla.                 15                        2 
Niagara Falls, N.Y.             0                        0 
Charleston, SC.                40                        1 
Otis, Mass.                    70                        7 
Bangor, Maine                  32                        1 
Loring AF Base, Maine          22                        5 
New Orleans, La.               84                        7 
Portland, Orea.                33                        2 
McChord AF Base. Wash.         32                        0 
Selfridge, Mich.                0                        0 
Sevmour Johnson AF Base. NC.   52                        2 
Elmendorf AF Base, Alaska     111                        0 

                Total       1,518         Drug Related  106 

[mhatrw]

36. All we know with 100% certainty is that they are lying. We don't know why.

They have been lying the whole time.

They've given us seven different versions of what happened that day.

Why should we assume the most innocent possible explanation for this? Do you want your federal government lying to you about this kind of stuff routinely with no accountability?

Why assume their crimes are the minimum conceivable? Doesn't this approach just give them license to lie as much as they want whenever they want?

[TAM]

38. Needs more qualification.

What I find here is how very easy people make accusations. I guess that is easy to do when the accused are not hear to defend themselves, or for you to look them in the eye.

So for starters, could you qualify a bit better who "They" are, in your mind.

I guess it is a moot point, in your mind then, because if they have given you 7 different versions, than you would believe none of them, nor any other versins that might come out. Therefore, you will never get what you pecieve to be a truth from it. So why bother with it? Assume everything from NORAD, the FAA, and the USG is all crap, and then take it from there...doesn't bother me, but leaves little arguing room for you, beyond coming into the convo and saying it is all crap...

[petgoat]

41. If they give you seven different versions, they are giving you

crap.

Does your girlfriend give you seven different stories about why she was late?

It doesn't take a lot of eyeball moxie to ask "why seven different stories,"
and ask for some clarification of their inconsistencies.

[TAM]

45. Rudeness or a point that I missed?

My wife of 8 years (who was my girlfriend for 10 years before that) doesn't give me any reason why she is late...she doesnt have to. That said, I get your drift...but how does it relate to what I said? Or were just being rude? Just seems to be a waste of energy to ask questions if you are not going to believe the asnwers, either those given already, or those that will be given when you ask directly.

[mhatrw]

42. I'd love to have 5 minutes to publicly cross examine every single

person involved in this pyramid of lies.

[petgoat]

44. Here's my subpoena list

Not all liars. Some are experts, some are witnesses of events.

Sibel Edmonds
FBI agents who want to testify about their anti-terrorist investigations before 9/11
The CIA person who delivered the 8-6 PDB to W and was told "OK, you've covered your ass."
Indira Singh
Cheney's young man who asked "do the orders still stand?"
The pilot and crew of the C-130H that was on both the Pentagon and Shanksville crash scenes
The FAA flight controllers whose audio tape was destroyed
CIA agent Larry Mitchell
Dr. Terry Callaway
experts from Raytheon on remote controlled aircraft
The Pentagon employee who told John Judge there were missiles at the Pentagoon
Secret Service agents who decided to let Bush stay in the classroom in Florida
General Mahmoud Ahmad
The FDNY chiefs who reported structural damage to WTC7
The FDNY personnel in the video who said "Move out, there's a bomb in the building"
The FDNY official who reported explosions to the news media in live TV reports
The engineer who ordered the WTC steel destroyed
The owners of the mob-connected scrap yards that recycled some "stolen" steel
The ASCE investigators who rejected the FDNY claims of WTC7 structural damage
William Rodriguez
Indira Singh's colleague from the FBI who testified to the 9/11 Commission
Condi Rice
George Tenet, Porter Goss, Sen. Bob Graham
Jamie Gorelick
Members of the 9/11 Commission staff who were suspicious of Cheney's account of 9/11
Philip Zelikow
Personnel who collected body parts and DNA samples from the Pentagon
Witnesses to the helicopter flying around the Pentagon just before the attack
Family members of aircraft passengers which family members have never applied for
compensation from the victims compensation fund
Rudy Giuliani
Security personnel at the WTC (about the powerdown)
Scott Forbes
Security Personnel at WTC7
The alarm company at WTC7 (turned the fire alarms to TEST mode early the morning of 9/11)
NIST personnel working on the WTC7 report
Dr. Steven Jones
The authors of the FEMA Appendix C metallurgical analysis of the evaporated steel
Myers, Eberhardt, Rummy
Sen. Mark Dayton
The Able Danger guys
Colleen Rowley
Kenneth Williams
David Schippers
Frasca and Maltbie
Robert Wright
Richard Clarke
Norman Mineta
Tugboat/barge personnel who transferred the steel to Fresh Kills
Fresh Kills personnel who saw the steel
Ground Zero clean up personnel
WTC7 cleanup personnel
Thomas Eagar
Civil Engineers who reported on the Pentagon
Ali Mohammed
Patrick Fitzgerald
Peter Lance
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Abdul Hakim Murad
Ramzi Yousef
Daniel Pearl's wife

[TAM]

46. Big list...

That is a mighty large group of people to be lying about the deaths of 3000 Americans. Seems like the 2nd American Civil War has already begun.

[petgoat]

47. I didn't say they were all liars. I daresay most of them have never

been asked to testify under oath. Many have not been permitted to testify.

[TAM]

48. Who wasnt allowed, and by whom?

I would be interested in seeing a list of who was not "permitted" to testify (or do you mean the Commission didn't want to hear what they had to say?)?

[FoxOnTheRun]

50. Or they testified behind closed doors,

like William Rodriguez and his statements never appeared in the report.

[petgoat]

53. Sibel Edmonds (gagged!), Indira Singh (threatened!)

and Sibel's FBI friend come immediately to mind.

William Rodriguez says he provided the 9/11 Commission with
names of 27 potential witnesses and not one was called.

The article in the American Conservative says (if memory serves)
that three FBI agents want to testify about their pre-9/11 knowledge
but they have to be subpoenaed first.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/03-11-2002/vo18no05_didweknow.htm

That's for starters.

If I was Cheney's young man who heard him say "the order still stands"
I would want to testify.

[greyl]

21. They could have been mono 8 bit wavs

at a 11025khz sample rate, in which case there would be several hundred MBs free on the 3rd disk.
For example.

edit: plus what TAM said above. ;)

[FoxOnTheRun]

49. I didn't knew wav had compression and var .sampling rates.

I only knew the standard PCM wav with 44.1 khz, But there are also codecs for compression

PCM/uncompressed, Microsoft ADPCM, ITU G.711 a-law, ITU G.711 �-law,IMA ADPCM,ITU G.723 ADPCM (Yamaha)
GSM 6.10, ITU G.721 ADPCM, MPEG

and they go to even 8 khz which is telephone quality, kinda logical.

Thanks for the headsup.


So why don't you present us the 30 hours of tapes, Mr. Producer?

[TAM]

51. Pick up the phone...

get his number, or his email, and ask him. I doubt he comes to the DU.

:)

TAM

[greyl]

52. Heheh, that's not me.

I have recording experience, but nothing to do with government or 9/11.

[TAM]

13. I agree with your position...to a degree...

I personally feel that all versions within a month of the attacks are likely to be full of errors, misquotes, and inaccurate information. I think the key is what was the "intent" of this, if there was one.

The Inspector General found no evidence indicating "intentional" or "deliberate" fabrication of facts or misleading, did he not? (an honest question, as I am going from memory here) Or are we to assume that the Inspector General is part of the "inside job" as well.

I honestly feel that all versions of the response that were given early on are in err simply due to miscommunication, and protecting ones ass from the repercussions of incompetence.

I have not seen any evidence of "covering-up" or "intentionally lieing" in order to cover-up an inside job, but I would be very interested to see any HARD EVIDENCE that points to it.

My comments on Griffin's ability stands. Even in checking for "editing" I doubt he would qualify. Like I said, he, like you are I, are qualified to debate the timelines, and to find contradictions between the tape content and official testimony. As for the techincalities of the tape and its legitimacy, there are more qualified people.

TAM

[Shoestring]

16. 9/11 Commission says section of tapes was missing

In the endnotes of the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 459), it says: "Because of a technical issue, there are no NEADS recordings available of the NEADS senior weapons director and weapons director technician position responsible for controlling the Otis scramble."

Now isn't that interesting. I wonder what this "technical problem" was? Perhaps the FBI deleting over that section, maybe?

[TAM]

17. Seems a bit extreme...to me.

Is every single absence of evidence a conspiracy to people on this board. I mean I know this is the 9/11 section of the board, but if that is the case, i am sure there are thousands of "Conspiracies" to find under the Democratic govt watch as well.

[petgoat]

20. Potentially destroyed evidence is not an absence of evidence.

And finding equivalence to Democrats has no point except that there's
no alternative to the way things are and nothing can be done.

I hear that on the open forums all the time. Make any remark about Bush and
they'll tell you Dems are just as bad. So what if the Dems are just as
bad? It doesn't change Bush's badness. The subtext is that it's the way
things are and there's no alternative so we're stuck with it.

I'm not ready to adopt the cynical view that nothing can be done.

[TAM]

23. But who?

Ya but who is going to do it...if not the DEMs, and not the REPs, than who? By the time a 3rd option could come to the surface, then gain enough power to be a viable option, my childrens children will be old men.

It is all well and good to point fingers, but if noone has a plan, than are you not spinning your wheels?

[FoxOnTheRun]

24. There are some 911 truth candidates

For example there is
Carl Pierson, 9/11 truth candidate for Attorney General of New York State
He could get a investigation because he would have the power
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley/0607/20060729_Sat_Tarpley2.mp3


Also 911 truth is asking all candidates for senate, congress, Governor etc if they want to pressure for a new investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060721202752870

They got Bowman (D) in Florida and some greens.

You won't see this on TV

[petgoat]

26. If the idea that the Dems are just as bad is so mainstream

that even the Republicans are saying "sure, our guys are crooked but the
Dems are no better," that suggests a great deal of dissatisfcation with
both parties. Theoretically, any election they could be overthrown.